Two recent political contests have raised troubling scenarios that do our country no good.
At the beginning of the month, François Legault, leader of the Coalition Avenir Québec, crushed his opposition in that province’s general election.
The CAQ secured its second majority in a row, increasing its seat count to 90 from 74, the biggest winning margin in Quebec for 30-some years.
The once-formidable Liberals were left with only 21 seats — the party’s worst showing since 1956. And remarkably, the Parti Québécois took just three seats, its worst performance ever.
Legault is an unrepentant nationalist. He has blamed increasing violence on immigrants, and said that it would be suicide to increase immigration.
During his preceding term of office he passed legislation to greatly restrict the use of English.
Acknowledging the unconstitutional nature of this measure, Legault invoked the Charter’s notwithstanding clause to forestall judicial review.
He also banned provincial employees from wearing religious symbols at work, arguably also an infringement of Charter rights.
The question now, with his overwhelming majority, is what Legault may do next. He has made clear there is no intention of seeking a referendum on sovereignty, wisely, since there is little support for such a step.
But by doing everything possible to make language and culture political weapons, Legault is proceeding by other means to advance a nationalist agenda. It appears his motto, when it comes to furthering this ambition, is think of it always, speak of it never.
Then two weeks ago, Danielle Smith replaced Jason Kenney as head of the United Conservative Party and premier of Alberta.
Smith is a former leader of the right-wing Wildrose Party. She is known for her dismissive attitude toward government workers, and her opposition to public health measures designed to slow the COVID outbreak. She called unvaccinated Albertans “the most discriminated against group” in her lifetime.
The central plank in Smith’s election campaign was her promise to pass a “Sovereignty Act,” which would give Alberta the authority to ignore federal laws the province disapproved of.
Clearly legislation of this sort would never withstand a court challenge. Kenney himself called the proposal “half-baked,” though it was Kenney, as premier, who pushed through a referendum to cancel equalization payments, a proposition that passed with 62 per cent support.
It seems unlikely the notwithstanding clause could be used to shore up the Sovereignty Act, since that clause applies only to the provisions of the Charter. The federal government’s power to legislate derives instead from the Constitution Act.
Any such legislation is in all likelihood a dead letter.
What matters, however, is the mindset underlying it. If Legault is working behind the scenes to weaken Confederation, Smith is planning a frontal assault.
For once provinces can decide for themselves which federal statutes to obey, and which to ignore, we are no longer one country, but a loose amalgam of disparate voices.
Canada has become one of the most admired nations due, in part, to our ability to overcome formidable obstacles. The challenges of geography, climate, culture, language, Aboriginal inheritance and more, might have defeated a less determined people.
Yet unity of purpose is a value that neither Legault nor Smith see any value in. They are more interested in stressing what divides us, rather than what holds us together.
In that respect, neither is worthy of the elected office they hold.
>>> To comment on this article, write a letter to the editor: [email protected]
